Player Discussion Tony DeAngelo: Part III

[Rempe73]

It's amazing to watch the "he's not in the same stratosphere as Pionk" crowd morph into the "I always said if he listened to his coaches, he could be great" crowd.

Haha exactly

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

And if we do, then it will prove my point that this organization rarely takes risks. Which is why we don’t have a Cup in 25 years. I don’t want to sign everyone long term, but someone like DeAngelo and maybe Buchnevich are worth taking risks on.

Id rather take contract risks on guys like DeAngelo and Buch over the overrated UFAs that we've signed in the past...

 

[Rempe73]

Id rather take contract risks on guys like DeAngelo and Buch over the overrated UFAs that we've signed in the past...

Exactly! This organization sometimes has it backwards.

I would do 8 years DeAngelo and 4-5 years Buch, depending on the AAV of course.

 

[The Mouth]

Eight years of seeing those colossal giveaways that always lead to goals ? Please bridge him so we can trade him for a 4 th and a 7th in 2 years. Also, long term contracts on D men haven't exactly worked out in recent memory. But this 20 game wunderkin deserves 8 years. get a grip on yourself.

 

[Rangers in 7]

Eight years of seeing those colossal giveaways that always lead to goals ? Please bridge him so we can trade him for a 4 th and a 7th in 2 years. Also, long term contracts on D men haven't exactly worked out in recent memory. But this 20 game wunderkin deserves 8 years. get a grip on yourself.

hahah this has to be one of the worst takes on an offensive defensemen ive ever seen....im guessing you wouldnt sign a young karlsson either?

 

[Rempe73]

Eight years of seeing those colossal giveaways that always lead to goals ? Please bridge him so we can trade him for a 4 th and a 7th in 2 years. Also, long term contracts on D men haven't exactly worked out in recent memory. But this 20 game wunderkin deserves 8 years. get a grip on yourself.

But that’s kind of the point. You have to take a risk. Look at the Josi, McDonagh, and Ristolainen contracts. These types of player developments allow GMs to sign them at a lower AAV for a longer time. If ADA was consistent like this for 3-4 years, he would command a much higher AAV. Also, it’s not 20 games. It’s most of the season and the end of last season.

 

[SA16]

Bridging DeAngelo just means you're likely going to pay him 7M+ two years from now if he continues to progress and takes over the PP1 role (which has already started to happening and will for sure happen if Shattenkirk is dealt). None of that was ever a risk with Skjei as he does not have the offense/wouldn't be played in an offensive enough role to put up those numbers. If he doesn't continue to progress then congrats I guess but he's still going to put up points (since he always has) but you can't continue to be incredibly conservative on all deals. The reason Nashville has such a good defense is because they risked early long term deals on guys like Josi/Ellis instead of bridging them and then paying them way more. Josi got his long term deal after 3 years with a high of 40 points. Ellis got his after one full year with a high of 27 points. It can obviously go bad but if you don't take any chances you're never going to be in an advantageous cap situation.

 

[haveandare]

I’m as high on ADA as almost anyone but 8 years based on this sample size is beyond crazy imo.

A riksy over sign deal for him is 4-5 years imo and even that I’m not a huge fan of.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Love Tony’s game and think the world of his upside, but giving a guy with a history of being a headcase an 8 year deal is extremely sketchy to me.

I mean, I get the philosophy, I just don’t think I trust Tony enough at this point to do that. If the situations were swapped and Pionk was the guy playing like this, or Tony had a year plus of this level of play, I’d be more inclined to agree.

 

[True Blue]

I’m as high on ADA as almost anyone but 8 years based on this sample size is beyond crazy imo.

A riksy over sign deal for him is 4-5 years imo and even that I’m not a huge fan of.

Agreed on both parts. 8 years is way too many years. I would say 3 and call it a day. One would think that within that time frame, they will discover what they do or do not have.

 

[Rongomania]

Giving Tony at least 5 years would give a kid whom thrives off of confidence that much more. Great idea. 5x4 doable you guys think? That’d be a STEAL.

 

[Bob Richards]

Some future civilization will find the only evidence of our existence via The Mouth's perfectly preserved and unopened podcast episodes from thousands of years ago.

"No wonder they all died".

 

[Kovalev27]

You bridge tony to make sure he’s going to be a pro the next two years. That’s his only question mark. If he continues to mature you pay him whatever in 2 years because he’s earned it.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Eight years of seeing those colossal giveaways that always lead to goals ? Please bridge him so we can trade him for a 4 th and a 7th in 2 years. Also, long term contracts on D men haven't exactly worked out in recent memory. But this 20 game wunderkin deserves 8 years. get a grip on yourself.

I’m pretty sure you are the last person that should he telling someone to “get a grip on yourself”

 

[pld459666]

I can see why he was being questioned for his maturity level.

I'm sure he amped it up being mic'd and all, but I'm sure there is a lot of that during serious situations which tends to rub coaches the wrong way.

It's great that he has developed right before our eyes to be one of the more reliable defenders night in and night out.

I'll be honest, he's slowly converting me from leaning more towards Pionk to being a big fan.

As he continues to mature, he's going to learn how to better harness that additional energy he has to become a better defender.

I think I we saw that maturity growth when he didn't punch Niskanen in the face.

That was an opportunity to show the nonbelievers that they were right about him.

Instead, he didnt push the issue and cost the team

 

[Rempe73]

I understand why people think it’s too risky to sign him for 5+ years, but that’s the difference between icing good teams (who didn’t have much cap flexibility) and great teams (who had that cap flexibility). The point is to take the risk, especially if the player is playing better than his production indicates. And that is the key here.

If DeAngelo continues to have maturity issues, doesn’t develop any more, and only becomes a bottom pairing d-man, an 8 x 3.5 or 8 x 4 contract wouldn’t completely kill us. If he keeps playing the way he is, that is still a great contract. And if he does develop more, then that contract is an absolute steal and could be the best contract in recent Rangers memory. But he has to be willing to take the 3.5-4 mil AAV. I would even do 5 or 6 years for him.

 

[Rongomania]

I understand why people think it’s too risky to sign him for 5+ years, but that’s the difference between icing good teams (who didn’t have much cap flexibility) and great teams (who had that cap flexibility). The point is to take the risk, especially if the player is playing better than his production indicates. And that is the key here.

If DeAngelo continues to have maturity issues, doesn’t develop any more, and only becomes a bottom pairing d-man, an 8 x 3.5 or 8 x 4 contract wouldn’t completely kill us. If he keeps playing the way he is, that is still a great contract. And if he does develop more, then that contract is an absolute steal and could be the best contract in recent Rangers memory. But he has to be willing to take the 3.5-4 mil AAV. I would even do 5 or 6 years for him.

I just don’t see him regressing at this point .. do any of you honestly think he could take a step back after the lights out job Quinn has done with him?

I don’t see it. Let’s make this fiery prick part of that future beast core. Him and BL out there mixing it up is going to be so much fun to watch for years. Total ‘Garden’ type of guys.

 

[Ola]

There should be no risk. We have been around this guy close to 24/7 for two years. Either you believe in what you have or you don’t. We have in several situations not committed and then later on it turned out that we should have. That is tremendously costly.

Can TDA embrace being a NYR and do what it takes to be a cornerstone guy/leader/role model for the coming 6-7 years? Make the call. But if we bridge him and sit there 2 years from now in agony because he has kept developing at the same pace he is now and have to shell out a mega deal to keep him — then it should be a fireable offense for Gorton. Imagine how much value he pissed away for getting that call wrong. 3.5-4m per for 7-8 years instead of 7-8m per (which is the new ‘5-6m’).

These decisions are so tremendously important for the organization, and we have — of course led by Slather — totallay fumbled like 7 of 8 the last decade. Gorts can’t get another one wrong. If we can’t get these things right given the info we have on a guy being in our organization for 2 years something is seriously wrong at the top of this franchise.

If we think that he will stop developing, sure it’s the right call not to give him a long term deal. But you also have the trade aspect, TDA would be tradeable for most of that contract (I think?). Even if you aren’t totally sure that the maturity level really is there, the leading aspects is there, you could still resign him long term and deal him down the road.

 

[Rempe73]

I just don’t see him regressing at this point .. do any of you honestly think he could take a step back after the lights out job Quinn has done with him?

I don’t see it. Let’s make this fiery prick part of that future beast core. Him and BL out there mixing it up is going to be so much fun to watch for years. Total ‘Garden’ type of guys.

I don’t see him regressing either. He’ll have stretches of games where he’s either struggling or inconsistent, like the one stretch he had in the middle of the season, but that’s a given with nearly every player.

 

[Rempe73]

There should be no risk. We have been around this guy close to 24/7 for two years. Either you believe in what you have or you don’t. We have in several situations not committed and then later on it turned out that we should have. That is tremendously costly.

Can TDA embrace being a NYR and do what it takes to be a cornerstone guy/leader/role model for the coming 6-7 years? Make the call. But if we bridge him and sit there 2 years from now in agony because he has kept developing at the same pace he is now and have to shell out a mega deal to keep him — then it should be a fireable offense for Gorton. Imagine how much value he pissed away for getting that call wrong. 3.5-4m per for 7-8 years instead of 7-8m per (which is the new ‘5-6m’).

These decisions are so tremendously important for the organization, and we have — of course led by Slather — totallay fumbled like 7 of 8 the last decade. Gorts can’t get another one wrong. If we can’t get these things right given the info we have on a guy being in our organization for 2 years something is seriously wrong at the top of this franchise.

If we think that he will stop developing, sure it’s the right call not to give him a long term deal. But you also have the trade aspect, TDA would be tradeable for most of that contract (I think?). Even if you aren’t totally sure that the maturity level really is there, the leading aspects is there, you could still resign him long term and deal him down the road.

You articulated my point better than I did. Very nice. These contract decisions are extremely important, and I believe we have enough of a sample size to take the risk.

 

[Ori]

Absolutely DeangeNO !

I`m with @Ola on his view here - either you believe in the player or you don`t. So you can`t really compare G or Staal contract length with a young player and be afraid it don`t work out in the future. A bridge deal can be fine and all, but it can also hurt our cap situation in the future. And especially if DeAngelo has two strong bridge deal years - so consider that as well in an evaluation. Another topic about NMC or not - as long the player is without a NMC I don`t mind a long term with him, because if he hit his next contract will be so expensive when the bridge deal is over.

I`ve nothing against Brady Skjei contract length - no NMC on it or M-NTC. Although I would wait to move him even though he has struggled this season and sit out some games based on that, but maybe Brady has chemistry with our 2018 prospects defenders. It`s a bit off topic and my views with contract length on him and DeAngelo since I believe in him and positive that he can improve in the future.

 

[TheBPA]

I would give him 6 years at $4 million without thinking twice. Takes him through age 29 and you essentially get all of his prime years.

He's a PP player, he's going to get his points, so his cost is only going up.

 

[haveandare]

I understand why people think it’s too risky to sign him for 5+ years, but that’s the difference between icing good teams (who didn’t have much cap flexibility) and great teams (who had that cap flexibility). The point is to take the risk, especially if the player is playing better than his production indicates. And that is the key here.

If DeAngelo continues to have maturity issues, doesn’t develop any more, and only becomes a bottom pairing d-man, an 8 x 3.5 or 8 x 4 contract wouldn’t completely kill us. If he keeps playing the way he is, that is still a great contract. And if he does develop more, then that contract is an absolute steal and could be the best contract in recent Rangers memory. But he has to be willing to take the 3.5-4 mil AAV. I would even do 5 or 6 years for him.

We have a lot of cap flexibility for the next two years then we lose a bunch of big commitments and have even more. There is no cap reason to sign a guy who has been very good for one season after multiple benchings and the coach openly talking about his maturity issues to an 8 year deal.

The worst case for a guy who hasn’t been an NHL regular much before isn’t being a third pairing d-man for 8 years, it’s being out of the league or a minor league player while you’re committed to paying him like a decent NHLer for almost a decade.

Imo the risk on a bridge is tiny. If the guy proves to be a top pairing d-man long term, we will be in a fine position to pay him for it. Can even negotiate an extension as early as possible after he proves what he is for a longer sample.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I would give him 6 years at $4 million without thinking twice. Takes him through age 29 and you essentially get all of his prime years.

He's a PP player, he's going to get his points, so his cost is only going up.

He would be insane to take that. Like you, he knows his cost will only go up. And if he keeps playing solid defense(and continues to improve that) along with 50 point seasons, and 22+ minutes, that’s a legit first pair dman in the NHL.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Gotta bridge him, if he can consistently show he's a first pairing guy then pay him

I would expect Pionk and him get similar contracts